C.W.L. ex rel. C.L. v. Pelham Union Free Sch. Dist.

149 F.Supp.3d 451

C.W.L. and E.L., on behalf of C.L., a minor child, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.The Pelham Union Free School District, Defendant-Appellee.

14 CV 9705 (VB)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed December 9, 2015

Neal Howard Rosenberg, Lakshmi Singh-Mergeche, The Law Office of Neal

Rosenberg, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Stephanie Marie Roebuck, Suzanne Elizabeth Volpe, Keane & Beane, White Plains, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION AND ORDER

Briccetti, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs C.W.L. and E.L. (collectively, “Parents”) bring this action against the Pelham Union Free School District (the “District”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. The Parents seek judicial review of a decision by a State Review Officer (“SRO”) at the New York State Education Department, who found that the District offered Parents' child, C.L., a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years, and denied Parents' request for tuition reimbursement.

The District and Parents have each moved for summary judgment. (Docs. ##13, 15). For the reasons set forth below, Parents' motion is DENIED, and the District's motion is GRANTED. The SRO's decision is affirmed in all respects.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

BACKGROUND

I. Statutory Framework

The IDEA was enacted to promote the education of disabled children. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) ; see Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 179, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (interpreting predecessor statute to IDEA). States receiving public funds are required to provide a FAPE to children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). Public school districts must provide “ ‘special education and related services' tailored to meet the unique needs of a particular child, [which are] ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’ ” Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist. , 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. at 207, 102 S.Ct. 3034 ).

States have an obligation under the IDEA to identify, locate, and evaluate “[a]ll children with disabilities residing in the State” to determine whether they require special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A) ; see Handberry v. Thompson , 446 F.3d 335, 347 (2d Cir.2006). This so-called “child find” obligation extends to children who are “suspected of being a child with a disability.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(c)(1).

The IDEA requires states to create an individual education plan (“IEP”) for each disabled student. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(4) ; see also Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park , 459 F.3d 356, 363 (2d Cir.2006) (“The key element of the IDEA is the development of an IEP for each handicapped child.”). The IEP is a “comprehensive statement of the educational needs of a handicapped child and the specially designed instruction and related services to be employed to meet those needs.” Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ. , 471 U.S. 359, 368, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985).

If the state fails to provide a FAPE to a disabled child, the parents may enroll the child in a private school and seek reimbursement for the cost of the private school from the local board of education. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C) ; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ. , 471 U.S. at 369–70, 374, 105 S.Ct. 1996.

In New York, parents seeking such reimbursement must first file a due process complaint challenging the appropriateness of the IEP. FB v. New York City Dep't of Educ. , 923 F.Supp.2d 570, 577 (S.D.N.Y.2013). An impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) administers a hearing on the parents' complaint. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1). A board of education is required to reimburse parents for private educational services if: (1) the board fails to establish the student's IEP provided a FAPE; (2) the parents establish their unilateral placement was appropriate; and (3) equitable considerations favor the parents' claim. See Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter , 510 U.S. 7, 114 S.Ct. 361, 126 L.Ed.2d 284 (1993) ; M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ. , 725 F.3d 131, 135 (2d Cir.2013). The IHO's decision may be appealed to an SRO. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(2) ; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g). The SRO's decision may be challenged in federal court. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).

II. Factual Background

The following factual background is largely undisputed.

A. C.L. in the District schools

C.L. was born July 31, 1995, and attended District public schools from kindergarten through March of his sophomore year of high school.

Beginning in the sixth grade, three of C.L.'s closest friends went to private schools and C.L. experienced a “difficult ... transition to middle school.” (Tr. 619-20).¹ In the eighth grade, C.L. was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. On October 13, 2008, while in eighth grade, C.L. attempted suicide. C.L. was then admitted to a psychiatric hospital for approximately two weeks. While C.L. was at the psychiatric hospital, Parents met with the middle school principal, the school psychologist, and C.L.'s counselor about how to reintroduce C.L. to school, taking into account his psychological and psychiatric care.

When C.L. returned to school, he met frequently with the school psychologist because it was emotionally difficult for him to stay in class. C.L.'s mother spoke with the middle school psychologist two to three times per week. C.L. was hospitalized again for about a week in November 2008, because the school psychologist felt he was in danger to himself. During the remainder of eighth grade, C.L. cut class and started failing classes.

C.L. enrolled at Pelham Memorial High School (“PMHS”) for ninth grade. He began seeing psychiatrist Dr. Harold Abellard in addition to a psychologist, Dr. Nelson. Although he was still socially isolated, C.L.'s attendance and grades improved.

In October of tenth grade, C.L. was hospitalized again for suicidal ideations upon the recommendation of District psychologist Dr. Jeanean Hergenrother. In December, C.L. told Parents he wanted to kill himself when he turned 18 years old. Parents then hospitalized C.L. and told Dr. Hergenrother about this conversation. C.L.'s doctors increased his medication and C.L.'s mother informed Dr. Hergenrother a few days later that “[C.L.] says the suicidal thinking has essentially stopped.” (Ex. 44 at 37).²

C.L. returned to school and remained “absolutely miserable” at PMHS because “he felt completely ostracized. There was no one to sit in the lunchroom with. Kids didn't want anything to do with him.” (Tr. 658-59). C.L. visited Dr. Hergenrother several times per week. The guidance office “was his timeout place if he needed to leave” where he would go “just hang out on the sofas.” (Tr. 661-62).

In March of C.L.'s sophomore year, Dr. Hergenrother approached Rosemary Matthews, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services for the District, about whether to refer C.L. to the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”). Dr. Hergenrother and Ms. Matthews decided to refer C.L. to the CSE.

Around the same time, C.L.'s mother began researching alternative schools and discovered the Robert Louis Stevenson School (“RLS”). C.L. was accepted at RLS, and C.L.'s mother informed Dr. Hergenrother and Gena Archer, the guidance counselor at PMHS, via email on March 21, 2011, that C.L. would be starting there on April 5, 2011. Dr. Hergenrother and Ms. Matthews did not refer C.L. to the CSE because Parents placed C.L. at RLS.

B. C.L. at RLS

RLS is a private school located in New York City. It focuses on academic development for bright students with some level of emotional disability. It has class sizes of between eight and ten students.

On May 21, 2011, Parents executed a contract enrolling C.L. at RLS for the 2011-12 school year. C.L. attended RLS for both the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. Tuition was $49,000 for the 2011-12 school year, and $51,000 for the 2012-13 school year. C.L. excelled academically and socially at RLS.

C. C.L.'s IEPs

On March 21, 2011, based on the advice of counsel referred by RLS, Parents sent a letter to the New York City Department of Education's CSE requesting evaluations and special education services for C.L.³

On June 25, 2011, Dr. David Singer from the New York City Department of Education CSE conducted a psycho-educational evaluation of C.L. Dr. Singer concluded C.L. experienced “considerable anxiety and depression,” but was “able to often recover from the feelings.” (Ex. 7). Dr. Singer noted C.L.'s “[e]ducational skills vary slightly from below average for his grade level in calculation to considerably above grade level in reading recognition, reading comprehension, and problem solving.” (Id .).

On July 28, 2011, the City Department of Education developed an Individualized Education Services Program (“IESP”) for C.L., classifying him as a student with an emotional disturbance. However, C.L. was not offered a placement because Parents and C.L. lived in Pelham, in Westchester County.

On August 1, 2011, after consulting with new counsel, Parents contacted Ms. Matthews and requested an IEP from the District. On August 3, 2011, Ms. Matthews informed C.L.'s father the District would send him the IEP package to initiate the IEP process. Over the course of several days in September and October, the District completed educational, social, developmental, and psychological evaluations of C.L.

On October 13, 2011, the CSE convened to conduct C.L.'s program review and to develop an IEP for the 2011-12 school year.⁴ The CSE was comprised of Parents; Dr. Dayana Jimenez, Clinical Director at RLS; Dr. Abellard; Ms. Matthews; Dr. Hergenrother; Ms. Archer; Elizabeth Cronin, a District special education teacher; and other District personnel. In addition, C.L.'s...